Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The one thing that kind of irks me about the way education is administered today... I've heard so many professors say 90% of what you will learn, you will not use in the private sector. In my mind, that means I am paying 90% too much. Cut my bills down to 10%,
Which 10% do you want to learn? The 10 % that I use in my job, or the 10% that you use in your job? How about the years of practice in research and writing that people gain? Building skills like that cannot be done in 4.8 months.
College/university is not designed or intended as a vocational training course. It is designed as a means to educating a person in a broad manner so as to give them a broad number of choices. Some employers and individuals do use college as a training tool, and that simply indicates its strength, not its weakness.
Your thesis that we only need a small fraction of our education is flawed in another way. Taken to its logical extreme, you should be in favor of streamlining our K12 Ed system to only the essentials, however those are determined. So, no sports, no arts, no math for some, no English for others. One week of history, just enough to teach people how to vote, without giving them the tools or information necessary to actually make an informed decision. After all, if they know how to vote by pulling the lever, isn't the rest simply wasted education?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado xxxxx
I think we can all agree the last several years has shown we don't.
Not at all. The last several years shows that we do.
Unemployment for GED/high school grads has always been higher than that of college grads, and college grads consistently earn more as a group. That is a very strong reason for an individual to get an education.
The fact that some college grads do not perform to this level is not a reason to ignore the majority that do.
For the inevitable response, yes, I agree that there are many jobs out there that do not require a college degree. Some of them earn quite well and are essential to our economy and society. Some employers require a degree inappropriately.
So what? If you want one of those jobs inappropriately classified, you now need a degree. If you want lots of options in your life, you need a degree. Steel smelting, auto manufacturing, logging and coal mining are not coming back. Even if they did, they would employ fewer people than in the past because of automation. Now we need skilled operators and mechanics/IT guys to build and run complex equipment, not some guy with a pick axe.
I think we have a decent number of post-secondary graduates and one of the best higher eduction systems in the the world. That's not really what's lacking. The sore spot is high school. While we churn out a huge number of students with high school diplomas, we've done it by "dumbing down" education. As a result, we're now one of the worst developed countries when it actually comes to basic comprehension, and that shows. The big shortage is in technical but not necessarily college-educated positions. High school students simply aren't equipped to deal with them which puts a huge strain on the community college system to basically teach 8th-12th grade level material since the overwhelming majority of high school students graduate unprepared for college.
Which 10% do you want to learn? The 10 % that I use in my job, or the 10% that you use in your job? How about the years of practice in research and writing that people gain? Building skills like that cannot be done in 4.8 months.
College/university is not designed or intended as a vocational training course. It is designed as a means to educating a person in a broad manner so as to give them a broad number of choices. Some employers and individuals do use college as a training tool, and that simply indicates its strength, not its weakness.
Your thesis that we only need a small fraction of our education is flawed in another way. Taken to its logical extreme, you should be in favor of streamlining our K12 Ed system to only the essentials, however those are determined. So, no sports, no arts, no math for some, no English for others. One week of history, just enough to teach people how to vote, without giving them the tools or information necessary to actually make an informed decision. After all, if they know how to vote by pulling the lever, isn't the rest simply wasted education?
The bold text is exactly what I was trying to argue. I would be much more satisfied with a streamlined educational route that provides the essentials, less the humanities, physical fitness, politics, 3 years of literature, and so forth. Sure, these things have some value, but I only have so long to live. If they aren't going to be of some overwhelming benefit to me in my career, why should I be required to take them?
In many ways, college as it is today reminds me of the somewhat recent Microsoft lawsuit. When you bought a new computer around the time of Windows XP, you were also paying for all of the little programs such as excel, word, etc. This was compared to a monopoly. After the lawsuit, you were given the option to buy the computer without paying extra for all these little programs. What do you know... The computers are now $130 cheaper! For many models, that's a 25% reduction in the total cost. It would be nice if students had the same option with their educations.
K-12 is not part of this discussion. I have my own opinions, but that is simply a straw man at this point. Let's save it for another topic, shall we?
And let's also realize, it's impossible for any educational track to teach students everything they will need to know in their future career. There is simply too much information to cover, which is why many workers and businesses alike specialize. It's important to realize this, and acknowledge that the future employer will also be required to contribute towards the development of future candidates. After all, labor is a resource in which the business hopes to make money off of. Don't they have some responsibility in the maturation process of their resource? It's the same as if a business hires someone with experience. Nobody ever hits the ground running the first day. Everybody does things differently, which is why companies always devote some time towards training and orientation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Unemployment for GED/high school grads has always been higher than that of college grads, and college grads consistently earn more as a group. That is a very strong reason for an individual to get an education.
The fact that some college grads do not perform to this level is not a reason to ignore the majority that do.
In my opinion, this is a very misleading statistic. Within that catagory of HS grads, you have two groups; those who could succeed in college but chose alternate routes, and those who simply lacked the capacity to succeed. Just because the stoners and less intelligent of the bunch are incapable of maintaining a meaningful career, it's no reason to believe a relatively intelligent HS grad will suffer a similar fate.
People are not statistics, and statistics have no influence on our chances of success. Having said that, people make decisions based on statistics, and rightly so. As time moves forward, this statistic will continue to hold true, especially as intelligent young people make the choice to attend college overwhelmingly, and in even greater numbers. While more college grad jobs will not be created (because supply does not create a demand in most cases) many of these grads will take jobs that don't require a degree. Of course, they will still be counted in this statistic and the numbers will show an even stronger correlation between income/employment and college education.
In my opinion, this statistic is simply showing that smart, calculated thinkers earn more money and have more luck finding jobs. Well duh!
Job Less, Great post. I've seen many kids switch majors, decide to take a new path, after doing as you suggested, and taking a broad spectrum of things.
It is a tragedy we are so cavalier about education in America. It is not about short-term ROI. We need to be less about instant gratification.
Sure, these things have some value, but I only have so long to live.
The average 22 year old college grad has well over 50 years to live. He has only invested 16 years towards school, and will work for 45 years, assuming he takes SS at the traditional time. That means about 27% of his time (16 years) went to prepare for the other 73%. Not an absurd expectation for employers to have at all.
I am going with the purpose of college is to get a job better than just going to high school alone. I say that because when the requirement for most jobs start with "Must have a degree..." - then yes the purpose of college is to aide you in finding work.
And yes I realize that most/if not all openings go a bit deeper than just a degree, i.e... requires a certain degree, years of experience etc... but the initial gate keeper is almost always "Degree required". Take away the college degree as a gate keeper and then I will believe that purpose of college lies beyond job preparing.
You are refuting your own point to a certain extent.
As you noted in an earlier post, vocational CC diplomas and certificates exist. Many fields have certification programs/courses as well. These things generally fit your criteria of streamlined job focused education.
You also broke down high school grads into two categories, lets call them high and low achieving. The existence of high achieving HS grads does imply that a college education is not REQUIRED for success, although we seem to agree that a college degree smooths the road to success.
Ok, we can leave K12 out of it. I think it is more a red herring than a straw man, but I will concede your point.
I think some jobs that really don't use a college degree shouldn't require a college degree for it's requirements. And some jobs really don't need that Master's degree that they require, like social work and being a librarian.
People can be very intelligent without going to college, or finishing college. Like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Zuckerman.
I think some jobs that really don't use a college degree shouldn't require a college degree for it's requirements. And some jobs really don't need that Master's degree that they require, like social work and being a librarian.
People can be very intelligent without going to college, or finishing college. Like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Zuckerman.
An MSW is a clinical professional dealing with counseling, not somebody who runs a soup kitchen. I sure do want that person to be highly educated.
Libraries are complicated and require a lot more than simply shelving books. Acquisitions, budgets, community relations, etc. no argument from me on the MLS.
Gates, Jobs, etc. Outliers all. What about the other 300 million of us?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
